Supreme Court Nominee #3

[Hope4More]

There is no middle ground on this. It will be interesting to see how Senators vote, this close to the election. My Mom is an election judge, she states that the election officials think that this year, more people will be voting, than ever.

I can definitely feel the emotional pain some of the young women display during their protests.

Working backwards:

1. What you saw was anger, rage, & determination, for many, yes, underlaid by the pain of being sexual assault survivors
who rightfully feeling they are being mocked, including by the president of the United States & senate republicans who dare to screech that men are the real victims.

2. There definitely is an unusual & large surge in voter registration & voter enthusiasm for these midterms. Regardless of party affliation (or none) that imo is a really great thing. More voters= more hope for democracy. Still, this is still the US, these are still midterm elections, which means fewer than 50% (and maybe far fewer) of us will bother to actually vote.

3. No middle ground? I really don't believe that is true in reality, and it surely isn't true by necessity.

The obvious middle ground, imo, is a consensus that the legitimacy of the SC matters more than any individual nominee. I honestly cannot imagine how anyone who cares about the necessity of keeping the SC above raw partisan politics could disagree.

I'm convinced that it would be far more helpful to the dems' electoral chances, for example, if Kavanaugh is confirmed. K being confirmed will rile up dem voters even further.

But, K being confirmed will absolutely damage the SC. The degree to which that is true depends on how much comes out during the inevitable Dem investigations of K and this nomination process (including the 90% of K's papers repubs refused to make available).

Troubling or worse stuff will be found, Dems will politize what they find, repubs will go low, the Court will be further tainted. And that's above & beyond the fully 50 percent plus of Americans who already think one SC seat was stolen by repubs, and who will believe that a liar & partisan & man who can't control his temper also sits on the court.

For me, it isn't even close: the legitimacy of the Court is vastly more important than dems' political fortunes. The many thousands of lawyers, judges, and law professors who have come forward to protect the Court are good company to keep

 

[CoolJ]

It is despicable what the democrats, specifically Feinstein, did to Dr. Ford. This all could have happened in confidentiality, but the democrats wanted to put Dr. Ford on display, front and center, and make a mockery of this whole situation.

The Democrats are desperate and in panic mode. What are they so worried about?

What is next in this soap opera we call American Politics?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

CoolJ, I wish more people could pull off the blinders of extreme left-right politicking and see this sham for what it really is.

Perhaps everyone’s being used. Ulterior motives all around?

 

[Hope4More]

I think you are bang on RANCH. This smear campaign by the Democrats and left wing media is going to backfire on them in a big way.

Above all else, the people want truth and honesty from their politicians and media.

It is a sad state of affairs what has gone on here, but i think most Americans eyes are opening as to the crookedness of the system in general. This is a defining moment in history.

See? More potential for middle ground. Some see " left-wing" smears & conspiracies, others see "right wing" smears & conspiracies, others don't see winged smears or conspiracies at all.

What a vast majority of Americans do agree upon is that yep, something is very broken about our political system, and it no longer represents OUR interests, however defined.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think one emotional response when any jurist isn't on the bench is relevant to their judicial temperment while on the bench.

His judicial temperment is excellent when both attorneys from each side are before him. No one has said he didn't have the right temperment. In fact those who have been before him have said he is respectful to both sides...unbiased and is calm and patient when listening to each sides argument.

That is what truly matters when selecting a nominee which is what has been their consistent temperment throughout their time as a judge when both sides have been before him.

Jmo

 

[CoolJ]

CoolJ, I wish more people could pull off the blinders of extreme left-right politicking and see this sham for what it really is.

Perhaps everyone’s being used. Ulterior motives all around?

Yes of course, ulterior motives all around.
And yes this left-right paradigm is a sham.
I am not confused, i completely understand there are just as many crooked conservatives as there are liberals

I still have yet to see anyone put partisanship aside and form an opinion on this case based on known facts.

Lets call this for what it is. This is all about POTUS. If Obama had nominated Kavanaugh and these allegations were made, most folks would be much more inclined to form an opinion based on facts.

And the fact is the allegations made against Kavanaugh are uncorroborated. The people of America cannot let a mere allegation influence an appointment of a Supreme Court Justice.
The day that happens is the day democracy ends in America.

DUE PROCESS!

 

[mickey2942]

Kavanaugh's behavior was interesting to me, he has obviously been gifted with almost everything his entire life. And now, he has worked towards a goal, and for once, it isn't happening on his schedule. The entitlement mentality was apparent.

54 years old, and he gets to learn that life is not fair. He literally displayed a two year old tantrum.

While there is no evidence to support Dr. Ford, I can easily see Kavanaugh in the role she testified about. His entitlement mentality oozes from every single pore.

 

[Boodles]

To those who want K confirmed: I wouldn't count on Flake just yet. He apparently isn't on board yet, though some of his repub colleagues are working him over, and, he told a reporter for the Atlantic that he would be getting together with Senator Coons tonight for a long discussion.

Meanwhile, repub politicos are advising that the repubs would do better this fall in both House & Senate races if K withdrew, rather than if he was confirmed (which I've thought & posted all along).

He won’t withdraw. He’s: 1. Desperate, and 2. Bought-and-paid-for, indebted to his financiers.

 

[Betty P]

Perhaps we need to focus more on Kavanaugh's record of lying to Congress, several times in the past.

From Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

• In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

These are serious breaches, enough to prevent him from being considered as a justice on SCOTUS, or serving on the bench in any capacity.

 

[Boodles]

Kavanaugh doesn't need Flake's vote if he gets all of the other Republicans.

I think republicans will do just fine in the fall because of Kavanaugh. Most people don't want to be convicted without due process. And I think a lot of folks like beer.

This isn’t a conviction. It’s the selection of a Supreme Court Justice for a lifetime term. It’s not an entitlement. He’s not the best person for the job.

 

[Hope4More]

CoolJ, I wish more people could pull off the blinders of extreme left-right politicking and see this sham for what it really is.

Perhaps everyone’s being used. Ulterior motives all around?

Yep. The real battle isn't about Kavanaugh, and it isn't about whether or not republicans being able to seat an ultra conservative on the SC. It continues to amaze me that anyone doubts the R's ability to do the latter. R's don't need a single Dem vote to confirm a SC justice. Even if the dems win the Senate (and that is NOT going to happen), McConnell has until January to get another nominee confirmed if K goes down, and history shows he'd break any norm to do so.

The real battle is about the midterms. For R's, increasing their majority in the Senate, and less likely but not impossible, holding onto the House. The more fired up their base is, the greater their chances of doing both.

It doesn't fire up the base if they understand they're going to get that 5th justice no matter what. And it dampens the fires of rage if K actually gets confirmed. Voters don't vote to say thank you. They vote to make demands or against what is being done. That's why the incumbent party almost always loses seats in the midterms. K, to rile them up. (Increasing, others believe McConnell has no worries about K going down. Fire, fire, fire, midterms, then he gets to advance and confirm a nominee he actually likes, and that won't drag down R's further on.

Likewise, Dems aren't panicking in the least. They've never thought taking the Senate was realistic , but they are determined
to take the House. The K battle fires up their base. Fire, fire, fire, midterms, they hope the House & committee gavels. ...

All of this is why Justice Ginsberg and Chief Justice Roberts and many others think the nomination process is broken. And that both parties are to blame. Difficult to argue with that , eh?

 

[Inthedetails]

I don't think one emotional response when any jurist isn't on the bench is relevant to their judicial temperment while on the bench.

I've been in position to hire people. If a job candidate cried, yelled, boasted about Yale, shared his/her love of beer, and sneered at the people questioning him/her during an interview, I would absolutely take that behavior into consideration....and I wouldn't hire the person. I would absolutely think that his/her demeanor while being questioned reflects not only how s/he would behave on the job, but is also an indication of character.

On one job that was technical, I asked job candidates to perform the actual job and then critiqued their work. I wasn't looking at their skills as much as HOW THEY REACTED TO CRITICISM. I wanted to know if they got angry when a mistake was pointed out and if they could take direction just as much as I wanted to see their technical skills.

I can't even image telling people interviewing me that I like beer and then, like a snotty brat, ask if they like beer...or whatever it was that he threw back at the interviewers. Come on, he was disrespectful to the people in position to hire him. That's not okay.

Yes, I know he was under pressure of the allegations. I get that. I get the anger he likely felt. I also I expect a SC Judge to hold it together. Just imagine if he did hold it together and handled the whole thing maturely - that would be impressive, traits to admire!

He could've GAINED support by his behavior rather than lose support and respect. He had the opportunity to do just that, and he didn't take it.

I would like to see a better candidate. There is one out there somewhere, surely.

jmo

 

[Boodles]

Ford has extensively cited her 2012 therapy notes as a kind of corroboration for her claims but has not provided them -- even in part -- to investigators. (The Washington Post said Ford had shared a "portion" of her notes with their reporters, but under oath on Thursday, Ford said she could not recall whether she had actually done so, or merely described the notes).

Judiciary Committee releases executive summary of supplemental FBI report on Kavanaugh

Late Thursday, Grassley ripped into Ford's attorneys for their request, and suggested in an exasperated letter that they simply wanted to stall Kavanaugh's confirmation at any cost.

"Your response on behalf of your client is a non-sequitur," Grassley wrote in the letter. "It’s not even clear to me what purpose turning over these materials to the FBI would accomplish. The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate. That is precisely the outcome I seek with this request."

Furthermore, Grassley added, "The U.S. Senate doesn’t control the FBI. If you have an objection to how the FBI conducts its investigations, take it up with [FBI] Director [Christopher] Wray."

She said she’d provide them to the FBI directly, but not the Senate committee. But they didn’t bother to contact her, per McGahn’s direction, I’m sure. And Grassley is acting demented. He needs to get checked out medically or go down to Florida and watch the ebb and flow of the ocean.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think one emotional response when any jurist isn't on the bench is relevant to their judicial temperment while on the bench.

His judicial temperment is excellent when both attorneys from each side are before him. No one has said he didn't have the right temperment. In fact those who have been before him have said he is respectful to both sides...unbiased and is calm and patient when listening to each sides argument.

That is what truly matters when selecting a nominee which is what has been their consistent temperment throughout their time as a judge when both sides have been before him.

Jmo

Thousands of lawyers, judges, and law professors disagree with you on that, as does a republican ex-Supreme Court justice, some of K's own law clerks who withdrew their support after his rant, as do even some of his closest friends and supporters, including Benjamin Wittes.

 

[CARIIS]

She said she’d provide them to the FBI directly, but not the Senate committee. But they didn’t bother to contact her, per McGahn’s direction, I’m sure. And Grassley is acting demented. He needs to get checked out medically or go down to Florida and watch the ebb and flow of the ocean.

dont send him here -- how dare you!

 

[CARIIS]

collins confirmed yes

 

[CARIIS]

Perhaps we need to focus more on Kavanaugh's record of lying to Congress, several times in the past.

From Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

• In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

These are serious breaches, enough to prevent him from being considered as a justice on SCOTUS, or serving on the bench in any capacity.

before fords tradegy - -he perjured himself many times

 

[Hope4More]

collins confirmed yes

No surprise there. Watch that fund for her next opponent to go soaring over $2M today

 

[CARIIS]

Yes of course, ulterior motives all around.
And yes this left-right paradigm is a sham.
I am not confused, i completely understand there are just as many crooked conservatives as there are liberals

I still have yet to see anyone put partisanship aside and form an opinion on this case based on known facts.

Lets call this for what it is. This is all about POTUS. If Obama had nominated Kavanaugh and these allegations were made, most folks would be much more inclined to form an opinion based on facts.

And the fact is the allegations made against Kavanaugh are uncorroborated. The people of America cannot let a mere allegation influence an appointment of a Supreme Court Justice.
The day that happens is the day democracy ends in America.

DUE PROCESS!

The facts are he should have disqualified before Ford -- he overtly lied , over and over about stolen hacked emails while in the Bush White - proven period .

I watched it I saw the emails with my own eyeballs. He lied

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am not here to get into the back and forth with anyone. In fact I find it nonproductive. I am trying to look at this fairly without emotions.

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican but at one time I was a registered Democrat and in the past few years an Independent.

I am simply stating my own opinion and I still say he has a proven record of having the right judicial temperment for many years when he has sat on the bench.

I do understand his anger and emotional outburst. He was seeing his life long record being destroyed along with his family who were getting death threats.

If he had remained calm under such trying circumstances of his entire life I would think that was a very abnormal reaction for anyone accused who has firmly said they are innoncent..

But more importantly he was not on the bench presiding over cases. When he is on the bench he is well known for having the right judicial temperment required each and every time attorneys have been
before him.

Imo